Tuesday, 6 December 2016

The EU referendum in June produced a decision which was irrational
and reckless. It’s hardly an overstatement to say that the consequences will be
felt for generations to come. And in the worst-case scenario, I wonder if historians
will see the Brexit vote as a trigger which led to the ultimate demise of the
whole European project. If so, they’ll be writing a history of deep economic
recession and war.

Given that I feel so strongly about this, you might expect
me to back wholeheartedly the renegades who are fighting tooth and nail for the
pro-European cause. Cheering every mishap and fumble from the government in the
hope that the whole absurd Brexit project collapses in on itself.

But I don’t. And the reason is quite simple. As well as
being a strong supporter of Europe, I believe in social cohesion and public
trust in the democratic process here in the UK. And I fear that both may come
under threat as we move into 2017.

Let’s look at the legal case currently before the Supreme Court.
Those who brought the action originally are avowedly anti-Brexit. They’re not
interested in the judgment because it answers some very particular and esoteric
piece of constitutional law about Crown prerogatives. They see it as a way of
creating a stumbling block to the triggering of Article 50.

The Court – if it rules in the government’s favour – will be
at pains to point out that they have no political axe to grind. They will send
the decision back to Parliament and there will be much rejoicing in liberal and
left-wing circles.

But why the celebration? We’re repeatedly assured that
Parliament would never actually block
Article 50. Would they be cheering
because some ancient, ‘uncodified’ constitutional right has been upheld? Or
because, secretly, there’s a hope that Article 50 will be further delayed or
obstructed?

The majority of the general public, according to the latest
YouGov polling, wants the government to win the case and for Theresa May to
decide on the trigger. This news will probably surprise young hipster activists
and the Guardian-reading middle
classes in Richmond-upon-Thames who rely on being able to visit their Tuscan
villas twice a year. It will shock the legal professionals who are well read in
Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. But is it really that astonishing?

When people voted in the summer referendum, they were told
on numerous occasions by both sides of the debate that they were making a
momentous decision. We Remainers said that once you’ve voted out, there will be
no turning back. The Brexiters opined that it was the one and only chance to
break free from the shackles of the EU.

So people voted believing that their vote counted for something.
And when they did, they kicked the establishment in the teeth, because they
gave the verdict every politician and business leader and clergyman and international
statesman had told them not to give.

The establishment licked its wounds and said that it understood.
It claimed to recognise the loud cry of discontent. Democracy would stand. As
the American political consultant, Dick Tuck, once put it: ‘The people have
spoken, the bastards.’

Let’s imagine a scenario. Early in 2017, a group of
unelected judges decides that the referendum result cannot be put into effect
without a vote in Parliament. The anger will be palpable, because in the eyes
of most ordinary people – who are not necessary well versed in constitutional
law – their referendum has more legitimacy on this issue than anything that can
be decided by MPs. It was, after all, a mass democratic exercise.

And let’s say that some MPs – a vocal minority, perhaps –
try to delay or obstruct the triggering of

Article 50, that sense of anger will
start to grow stronger. Maybe the lawmakers will put down amendments which tie
the hands of the British government in negotiations and signal to EU bureaucrats
the limited wriggle room that Theresa May has.

Of course, Members of Parliament may well be reluctant to
push their luck too far. 63% of them, according to the University of East
Anglia, represent seats which voted for Brexit. But will members of the House
of Lords have any compunction in this regard? Elected by no one and only
loosely accountable to their parties, they may react in unpredictable ways.

And, of course, it’s worth mentioning in passing that it
might be decreed by the learned justices that the Scottish Parliament and
Northern Irish Assembly have a potential veto over Brexit. In reality, that is
the truly nuclear scenario, which no one talks about. It would quickly threaten
the break-up of the UK.

So we can’t yet know the detail, but quite early in 2017, there
is a chance of a full-blown constitutional and political crisis. And my message
to those on the left of British politics is to beware of what you wish for. I
personally do not see any good coming out of the confrontations we can easily
envisage.

If May battles through, but is wounded in Parliament and is
seen to be obstructed by Liberal Democrat, Green and Labour MPs, my prediction
is that we shall see a huge UKIP resurgence and possibly the growth of even
more unsavoury far-right politics.

Her other option is to request a general election, for which
she’ll need a two-thirds majority in Parliament. As I’ve said before, it is
hard to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can refuse such a request, given their
stated desire to confront her at the polls.

I have absolutely no doubt that May would achieve a very
large majority. It is, of course, possible that there would be resurgence of
the Lib Dems in some strongly pro-Brexit seats. But in a general election,
there would be nothing like the effect they managed to achieve in a bizarre
one-off by-election in south-west London. Labour meanwhile would be under huge
threat from UKIP in its northern heartlands and undoubtedly stands on the verge
of a historic catastrophe.

So I can’t cheer Brexit. It’s still the most stupid
political decision made in the UK in my lifetime. But beware. If there’s one
thing worse than Brexit, it’s Brexit denied. I’m not sure our fragile democracy
would be able to cope with the consequences.